Passport of Suresh Salieh Speaks the Truth
Travel records raise questions as Sri Lanka's Easter Sunday investigations turn towards intelligence operations, missing information and disputed statements
COLOMBO — A passport is more than a travel document. It is an official record of international journeys, containing immigration stamps and other entries that can help investigators establish where an individual travelled and when. In a criminal investigation, those records can become important when they appear to conflict with statements made to investigators or evidence presented before a court.
The passport controversy surrounding retired Major General Tuan Suresh Salley, the former Director of Sri Lanka's State Intelligence Service, has therefore become an important part of the wider questions surrounding investigations into the 21 April 2019 Easter Sunday terrorist attacks.
The central question is straightforward: do the available passport records support the account given by Salley, or do they raise questions that investigators must answer?
Recent submissions by the Attorney General's Department before Sri Lanka's Court of Appeal have brought the issue into sharper focus. The prosecution has raised questions about Salley's diplomatic and official passports, his movements during 2019 and the circumstances in which copies of the documents were produced in court.
These are allegations advanced during ongoing legal proceedings, not final judicial findings. Nevertheless, the issues deserve a thorough examination because the Easter Sunday attacks killed hundreds of people and left families demanding a complete account of what happened before, during and after the tragedy.
The passport question
According to submissions reported by News 1st on 27 July 2026, Deputy Solicitor General Suharshi Herath told the Court of Appeal that Salley had stated he travelled to India on 3 January 2019 to attend a defence training programme and returned only in December that year.
The prosecution questioned whether the travel records supported that account.
Herath reportedly told the court that immigration stamps appearing in Salley's official passport included an Indian departure stamp dated 18 May 2019 and an Indian entry stamp in June 2019.
The prosecution argued that these entries raised questions about the account that Salley had remained in India throughout the period following his arrival.
The significance of the stamps is not that they automatically establish criminal wrongdoing. Rather, they provide specific dates and records that investigators can compare against travel itineraries, official assignments, training records and statements made by the individuals concerned.
If the prosecution's interpretation is correct, the records require an explanation. If there is an alternative explanation, that too should be established through documentary evidence.
The public interest lies in obtaining a reliable account supported by the original documents.
How did the diplomatic passport reappear?
A second question concerns Salley's diplomatic passport.
According to the prosecution's submissions, Salley told investigators from the Criminal Investigation Department that he had handed over his diplomatic passport to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs after completing his duties at the Sri Lankan High Commission in Malaysia.
The prosecution then questioned how a certified copy of the passport could subsequently have been produced in court.
Herath also reportedly questioned why only selected pages of the diplomatic passport and four pages of the official passport had been submitted, rather than the complete documents.
This issue raises a practical question for investigators: where are the original passports, who held them during the relevant period, and what records exist concerning their issue, return, custody and use?
A certified copy can be relevant evidence, but its existence does not, by itself, establish who possessed the original document at a particular time. That question requires evidence about the document's custody and the circumstances in which the copy was obtained.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs may hold records capable of clarifying the matter. Immigration authorities may also be able to verify the relevant entries against their own databases.
A transparent examination of the original records would help establish whether the apparent discrepancies are genuine and, if so, how they arose.
The alleged passport connection involving Karuna Amman
The passport controversy extends beyond Salley's own travel documents.
In court submissions reported on 21 October 2026, Additional Solicitor General Dileepa Peiris raised allegations concerning the alleged arrangement of a diplomatic passport for former LTTE member Vinayagamoorthy Muralitharan, widely known as Karuna Amman, to travel to the United Kingdom.
The prosecution alleged that two intelligence officers, including Salley, had arranged the passport and that Salley subsequently travelled to meet Karuna Amman.
The prosecution also referred to a passport allegedly issued under the name Dushmantha Gunawardena, described in the submissions as a former Secretary to the Ministry of Environment. Peiris reportedly said investigators needed to obtain further information from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Salley's lawyer, President's Counsel Shavindra Fernando, rejected the allegations. He argued that Salley was serving at the Sri Lankan Embassy in France at the relevant time and questioned how his client could have arranged the passport in Sri Lanka.
Fernando also maintained that the relevant passport numbers should be disclosed if the prosecution alleged that Salley possessed multiple passports.
These competing positions make documentary verification particularly important.
Investigators would need to establish the identity under which the disputed passport was issued, the authenticity of the supporting records, the officials involved in the application and approval process, and whether any intelligence officer participated in the alleged arrangement.
The distinction between an allegation and a proven offence must be maintained. Equally, the existence of a denial should not prevent investigators from examining evidence that can objectively confirm or refute the competing accounts.
Why the passport issue matters to the Easter Sunday investigation
The Easter Sunday attacks were among the most devastating terrorist incidents in Sri Lanka's modern history. The question of whether intelligence failures, deliberate omissions or the actions of particular individuals contributed to the tragedy remains a matter of profound public concern.
The investigation has involved allegations about intelligence warnings, the handling of information concerning suspected extremists and whether relevant leads were properly pursued after the attacks.
On 21 October 2026, News 1st reported that the Attorney General's Department had informed the Fort Magistrate's Court of further investigative steps concerning claims by three convicted individuals that others connected to the attacks remained at large.
The same report described prosecution allegations that information concerning a woman subsequently identified by a military informant as Sarah Jasmine had not been properly pursued. The prosecution alleged that this occurred with Salley's knowledge. These claims remain subject to investigation and must be assessed against the available evidence.
In this wider context, passport records can provide a means of testing particular statements about travel, official duties and meetings. They cannot, on their own, establish responsibility for the terrorist attacks or prove the existence of a conspiracy.
Their value lies in helping investigators reconstruct events accurately.
The questions that require answers
The passport controversy raises several questions that the relevant authorities should address through evidence rather than speculation.
First, what do the complete and authenticated passport records establish about Salley's international movements during 2019?
Second, can the apparent discrepancies between the prosecution's interpretation of the immigration stamps and Salley's account be explained by the original travel records and other contemporaneous documents?
Third, what happened to the diplomatic passport that Salley reportedly said he had returned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs? Are there official records confirming its return and subsequent custody?
Fourth, what documentary evidence exists concerning the alleged passport issued to facilitate Karuna Amman's travel to the United Kingdom? Can investigators establish the identity used, the officials involved and the circumstances of its issue?
Finally, do the verified travel records have any demonstrable connection to the wider Easter Sunday investigation, or do they concern separate matters that must be examined independently?
These questions are capable of being investigated. They should not be answered through political rhetoric or assumptions about guilt.
Let the evidence speak
The title, Passport of Suresh Salieh Speaks the Truth, expresses a central principle of investigative journalism: official records should be examined carefully when accounts of important events are disputed.
But a passport does not literally speak, and an immigration stamp cannot answer every question about a person's activities. It provides evidence of a recorded border movement. Establishing what happened next requires additional records, witness testimony and a properly conducted investigation.
If the records contradict a statement, the contradiction should be examined and explained. If the records have been misunderstood, the evidence should establish that too.
For the families of Easter Sunday victims, the priority is not sensational headlines. It is a complete, credible and impartial investigation that identifies everyone who bears criminal responsibility, if the evidence establishes such responsibility, and brings the truth into the open.
Sri Lanka's institutions owe the public that standard of accountability.
Ultimately, the decisive question is not whether a passport attracts controversy. It is whether the complete documentary evidence, tested fairly and independently, establishes what happened.